Engineer Matt Strong has generated strong controversy in recent days. Here's why: he's cloned the MakerBot Replicator, dubbed his version the TangiBot, and thrown it up on Kickstarter. His intent is to start his own "world class" company by undercutting MakerBot on price by about a third. In Strong's words:Just to be clear, there is nothing illegal, sneaky or underhanded going on here. Everything is legal and fair. Makerbot also used other people's open source designs when they created their business. This is simply the way open source designs work. Welcome to the world of open source.

First thing to jump out at us: it's an option to pay MakerBot for licensing rights to use their name. Strong mentions he's opted not to. However, he uses the word "MakerBot" 23 times in his written Kickstarter pitch.

That seems like a bit much to us, but the other issues are less clear-cut. Commentary on Strong's Kickstarter page has been robust, with some taking him to task and others in strong support. One commenter says doing a part-by-part design knockoff is shameful; Strong claims he's made unspecified manufacturing improvements. Others are lambasting MakerBot and accusing them of price gouging. Still others veer into personal territory, accusing Strong of not having the requisite amount of passion to be a valid member of the digital manufacturing community.

Strong has kept a cool head and gamely answered with lengthy responses, even as the comments continue to pile in. Some have questioned his ability to deliver, which doesn't seem quite fair to us. On the other hand, another commenter has repeatedly asked technically specific questions that Strong never outright addresses, instead deflecting them with answers that incorporate mention of quasi-relevant personal hardships he has undergone. (I find that's usually not a good sign, but that is my personal opinion.) Other question marks appear when you find the link to his resume abruptly went dead after a commenter had some questions about a company listed on there.

All of those things could be explained away by Strong, and I can't call any of them damning; but the spirited and ongoing debate on that comments page does not appear to be helping his cause. At press time he had about $15,000 towards a $500,000 target with 24 days to go. Hanging in the balance is the possibility of a less expensive 3D printer, and the results of a community-wide debate on what "open source" really means.

We highly recommend you read the actual comments and decide for yourself here.

(Note: This post has been revised by removing a quote incorrectly attributed to Strong that was in fact made by a commenter. Our apologies for any confusion caused by the misattribution.)

The latest design news, jobs & events. Straight to you every other week.

Join over 300,000 designers who stay up-to-date with the Core77 newsletter...

6 Comments

The URL going down to my resume was an accident. I just fixed it. When I posted my project on Kickstarter I didn't think anyone would care about who I was other than my relevant work experience. All of the links on my bio used to point at corporate websites that showed the projects I had done. I felt like they didnâ€™t really show who I was so I decided to change the link to my old online resume. I havenâ€™t updated it in years. On Sunday night I was trying to update it with a message that said the site was out of date. I wanted people to skip past the over the top intro video I did over a decade ago. In doing so I messed up my redirects. Sorry. The problem is now fixed.

What Strong is doing isn't technically illegal, since Makerbot's hardware is in fact open-source (though, depending on the license of the Makerbot replicator, it may become illegal if Strong doesn't share what changes he's made), but it doesn't seem to hold to the spirit of open-source hardware.
It's true that Makerbot's stuff is ultimately based on early RepRap designs, but their first printer, the Cupcake, was considerably altered and brought many new ideas to the table, in the spirit of fostering innovation. If I'm not mistaken, Makerbot's designs inspired Ultimaker and Printrbot (the latter being a successfully funded Kickstarter project).
If Strong happened to change the design to enable that 30% price difference without compromising quality or materials, then it's kosher in my book if he shares the new design with the community. Thus far, it doesn't seem like that's the case, or if it is, it doesn't look like he's willing to share (which again, might or might not be forbidden under the Replicator's license).
Open source hardware is still uncharted territory, rife with peril and opportunity. Arduino has run into similar issues. Phillip Torrone has written about that on the Makezine blog.
http://blog.makezine.com/2012/04/18/soapbox-counterfeit-open-source-hardware-knock-offs-101/

Andrew - I'm probably the commenter that kept drilling him with technical questions.
This is not competition. This is predatory business practice. He has built nothing new, and he's not transparent about what he's doing, nor does he feel he has an obligation to be transparent to his backers. These are all warning signs for a Kickstarter project. I've wrote in detail why I personally think it's a bad idea here:
http://blog.openbeamusa.com/2012/08/11/how-not-to-win-friends-and-influence-people-on-kickstarter/
Basically, the only "innovation" is that he's taking someone's hard work and moving it to a country where the labor wage is 1/5-1/10 of what it is in the US. His contract manufacturer will do all the heavy lifting and from the looks of it he'll pocket a tidy sum in the process. And at the same time, he's doing this at the cost of defunding MakerBot Industries, whom - regardless of what you think of them and their machines, have done a lot of educational outreach and publicizing 3D printing to make it mainstream.
Don't get me wrong - I think the Makerbot is quite overhyped and quite expensive for what it is. That being said, I don't consider knocking off their design - thus inheriting all the flaws - is the answer.
If he had made improvements to the design, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But the fact that this is the best he can do *right now* makes me think that this is the best he can do, period.

I agree that there a very few new ideas but this is ridiculous. He's stealing someone else's product. I thought the purpose of open source design was to collectively work towards moving an idea further. He's simply undercutting them and taking advantage of the situation. This is the kind of behavior that will kill open source.
He mentions wanting to add in a color touch screen control to future designs. Why doesn't he just make his project the control unit and help make 3D printing easier for all?
Don't be a leech Matt Strong and perhaps don't spend so much time talking about all your past work in your video. I get it you designed paper cutters.

Making durable cigarette lighters made great business sense back when everyone smoked; but now that more and more are giving up the habit, where will Zippo's future fortunes come from? The venerable brand has shrewdly looked to non-carcinogenic situations where fire production is required, namely, camping; they then quietly began...

Every time we revisit Big Ass Fans, the air-moving company seems to be doing better and better. Most recently they've made a strong push into residential, putting their industrial-strength expertise into the service of smaller domestic spaces.The company played it smart by starting a spin-off (pardon the pun) company with...

Adam Lynch is living the ID student's dream: He's started making money off of his designs while still in school. Lynch, who studies furniture design at Australia's Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, created a line of flatpack furniture called Scissor that includes stools, tables, and a wine rack. Made from...

Paris-based service design company User Studio recently shared a concept for the seemingly impossibly task of designing a beautiful and useful phone bill, the Refact. After analyzing 18 months worth of phone bill data, the designers worked to cull information that users would actually want to know including total phone...